CEO wages up 24%. Worker wages go south.
James R. Olson, jr.
jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
->On 10 May 1997 02:27:16 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
->wrote:
->
->>
->>Why are you upset with what CEOs make in comparison to what the other
->>workers make? Are you equally concerned with what athletes are paid,
->>in comparison to the other workers in the stadium?
->>
->
->It just demonstrates that class envy is the driving force behind all
->these little liberal boobs. Me, I respect success, and that the
->company I work has achieved success is due greatly to the quality of
->our CEO. I do not want to see him be snatched up by some other
->company, and I do not for a moment believe that I am qualified to
->perform his job. I also have a rather substantial financial investment
->in the company. From these perspectives, employee, stockholder, and
->soon to be retiree, I think he is worth every penny he makes.
Sorry, John, I doubt if your CEO monitors Usenet.
James R. Olson, jr.
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
->In article <woof-09059...@nuthouse.com>,
->Anonymous <wo...@dog.com> wrote:
->>In article <5klk6u$k...@northshore.shore.net>, m...@shore.net (Mark D.
->>Vincent) wrote:
->>
->>> Companies don't exists to employ people,
->>> they exist to make big profits. It is nothing more than a beneficial
->>> side effect that they need labor to do it.
->>
->>
->>Tell me, who is our economy FOR?
->>
->
->Everyone who wishes to participate and be productive.
Still haven't got a clue about NAIRU, do you? Unemployment maintained
at ~5% in order to keep wages down? That means that 1/20th of the
work force is purposely denied the option of being productive, no
matter how much they may want to. It's like musical chairs, Mark,
only instead of a chair being pulled out when the music plays, it's a
job.
James R. Olson, jr.
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
->On Thu, 08 May 1997 13:25:32 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
->>And how many sizeable companies have CEOs who pull in only $250,000 a
->>year, eh? What are your bloat factories competing against?
->
->What do you mean "sizable"? Most CEO salaries in the US are fairly
->reasonable, that is from $200,000 to $500,000. What has driven total
->compensation up is the stock options awarded CEO's by their board of
->directors.
->
->I thought I told you before, but I guess not, that this is the case.
->Over the last decade many CEO compensation packages have included
->stock options instead of increases in base pay, at the insistence of
->stockholders.
And it's got _nothing_ to do with the lower rate of taxation on
capital gains, does it? Nor does the notable chintzyness in dividends
lately...
->>Nike pays its employees--mostly women and children--three dollars a
->>day in Vietnam, when they aren't running them to death in punishment
->>drills under the hot SE Asian sun.
->
->This is silly. Nike is one of the most conscientious employers of
->third world labor. They usually pay their employees three to four
->times the average wage in the country. You would rather Nike stopped
->employing third world labor, so they could no longer make these large
->(in their economy) salaries? You think their employees would be
->better off working for 1/3rd of what they do now?
Nike subcontracts its production to the lowest bidder. It claims to
make sure that those bidders observe some sort of standards of
employee rights, but there are enough examples to the contrary that
that seems mere spin. Nike's actual control over the subcontractors
is probably pretty minimal, despite their claims to only dealing with
decent ones..
Mark D. Vincent
In article <337e3ad5...@news.lava.net>,
This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
If they are not around where you are you can go somewhere where they
are. Anyone who blames the fed for their unemployment has not tried too
hard. Never have I been denied a job with the prospective employer
telling me "I'm sorry, I can't hire you because interest rates just
got hiked and you may push wages too high". Get real. Or better yet,
get a job.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Petrich
In article <5lhpai$d...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <337e3ad5...@news.lava.net>,
>James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
>>Still haven't got a clue about NAIRU, do you? Unemployment maintained
>>at ~5% in order to keep wages down? That means that 1/20th of the
>>work force is purposely denied the option of being productive, no
>>matter how much they may want to. It's like musical chairs, Mark,
>>only instead of a chair being pulled out when the music plays, it's a
>>job.
>This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
>No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
This from someone who claims in another posting to have repeatedly
denounced Alan Greenspan's monetary policies.
The trouble is, if all the unemployed manage to somehow get jobs,
AG will keep on pushing interest rates higher and higher and higher until
enough people are squeezed out of work.
Never have I been denied a job with the prospective employer
>telling me "I'm sorry, I can't hire you because interest rates just
>got hiked and you may push wages too high". ...
I'm sure that they'd think of something else :-) A more likely
possibility is that they would not offer the job in the first place.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Christopher P. Reicher
Everybody please do the world a favor: Before you argue, learn about
economics. This especially goes for those of you who swallow socialist
arguments hook, line, and sinker.
Friedman and Hayek are a good start from the more philosophical side of
economics; there are some good textbooks out there too. Look
selectively.
--
Christopher P. Reicher
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
c-re...@nwu.edu
James R. Olson, jr.
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
->In article <337e3ad5...@news.lava.net>,
->James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
->>m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
->>
->>->In article <woof-09059...@nuthouse.com>,
->>->Anonymous <wo...@dog.com> wrote:
->>->>In article <5klk6u$k...@northshore.shore.net>, m...@shore.net (Mark D.
->>->>Vincent) wrote:
->>->>
->>->>> Companies don't exists to employ people,
->>->>> they exist to make big profits. It is nothing more than a beneficial
->>->>> side effect that they need labor to do it.
->>->>
->>->>
->>->>Tell me, who is our economy FOR?
->>->>
->>->
->>->Everyone who wishes to participate and be productive.
->>
->>Still haven't got a clue about NAIRU, do you? Unemployment maintained
->>at ~5% in order to keep wages down? That means that 1/20th of the
->>work force is purposely denied the option of being productive, no
->>matter how much they may want to. It's like musical chairs, Mark,
->>only instead of a chair being pulled out when the music plays, it's a
->>job.
->
->This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
Anyone who takes this argument seriously ought to read Orwell's _The
Road to Wigan Pier_, or Terkel's _Hard Times_. Both make the point
that the unemployed during the Depression were made to feel that it
was a personal failure that they were out of work, rather than an
effect of larger economic forces. The problem is not as large today
(although the official unemployment figures are heavy understatements
of the real level of unemployment) but people like Vincent are still
claiming that the unemployed are so out of choice.
->No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
So are job-seekers, in proportions higher than the jobs.
->If they are not around where you are you can go somewhere where they
->are.
Name me a place with zero unemployment.
-> Anyone who blames the fed for their unemployment has not tried too
->hard. Never have I been denied a job with the prospective employer
->telling me "I'm sorry, I can't hire you because interest rates just
->got hiked and you may push wages too high".
No, he just didn't say anything, he probably didn't even interveiw
you, and if he rejected you it was because there were a lot of other
people applying for the job too. Of course, even in a full-employment
economy, there will be many people applying for any job. The
difference is that anyone who wants to work will be able to.
->Get real. Or better yet, get a job.
I have two.
Smell the coffee, Vincent. 1/20th of the work force is out of work.
Maybe you think they're all as lazy as you are. I don't.
fri...@ix.netcom.com
Christopher P. Reicher wrote:
>
> Everybody please do the world a favor: Before you argue, learn about
> economics. This especially goes for those of you who swallow socialist
> arguments hook, line, and sinker.
>
I note:
Every twit thinks he's a damned expert.
MAF
Michael Lodman
In article <5lhpai$d...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <337e3ad5...@news.lava.net>,
>>Still haven't got a clue about NAIRU, do you? Unemployment maintained
>
>This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
>hard. Never have I been denied a job with the prospective employer
>get a job.
Old James keeps bringing up NAIRU whilst dodging the real meaning behind the
statistics, namely that it isn't 1/20 of the workforce purposely denied
the option of being productive, it's some larger percentage of the work
force cycling through unemployment between jobs. Magazine articles continue
to stress the difference between this group, for whom the economic impact
is somewhat lower wages on an annualized basis, and the chronic unemployable
who wouldn't have a job no matter how hard you tried to give them one.
Loren Petrich
In article <5lj6ls$f...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Michael Lodman <nospam....@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Old James keeps bringing up NAIRU whilst dodging the real meaning behind the
>statistics, namely that it isn't 1/20 of the workforce purposely denied
>the option of being productive, it's some larger percentage of the work
>force cycling through unemployment between jobs. ...
So what about that? Unemployment is still unemployment; and
unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
exploiters of the masses.
RHA
In article <337CFD...@nwu.edu>,
Christopher P. Reicher <c-re...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>Everybody please do the world a favor: Before you argue, learn about
>economics. This especially goes for those of you who swallow socialist
>arguments hook, line, and sinker.
>
>economics; there are some good textbooks out there too.
> Look selectively.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To which I respond: Physican, heal thy self.
--
rha
RHA
RHA
>>James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
>>>Still haven't got a clue about NAIRU, do you? Unemployment maintained
>>
>>This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
>>hard. Never have I been denied a job with the prospective employer
>>telling me "I'm sorry, I can't hire you because interest rates just
>>got hiked and you may push wages too high". Get real. Or better yet,
>>get a job.
>
>statistics, namely that it isn't 1/20 of the workforce purposely denied
>the option of being productive, it's some larger percentage of the work
>to stress the difference between this group, for whom the economic impact
>is somewhat lower wages on an annualized basis, and the chronic unemployable
>who wouldn't have a job no matter how hard you tried to give them one.
>
has been giggered a couple of times since the 70s so as to
lower the rate. And odd too, that prior to said giggering
we've calculated even lower unemployment.
--
rha
Michael Lodman
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> So what about that? Unemployment is still unemployment; and
>unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
>and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
>exploiters of the masses.
Nearly everyone truly looking for work, and preparing themselves, find work.
Then there are those who dabble in the job market to keep their benefits
going, and hope a job doesn't land on them (unless it pays like the
lottery).
Almost everyone I know has cycled through unemployment at one time or
another (contributing to your 1/20 statistic), almost no one has done it
more than once or for any particularly long time.
The bloodsuckers need to be cut off.
Gav. McNett
I agree with Mr. Reicher in principle, but hasten to point out that both
the capable Mr. Hayek and the lauded Mr. Friedman are ideologues of the
first water. Otherwise, I essay no criticism of their talents.
Zepp
On Sat, 17 May 1997 04:22:37 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <5lj6ls$f...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Michael Lodman <nospam....@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>Old James keeps bringing up NAIRU whilst dodging the real meaning behind the
>>statistics, namely that it isn't 1/20 of the workforce purposely denied
>>the option of being productive, it's some larger percentage of the work
>>force cycling through unemployment between jobs. ...
>
> So what about that? Unemployment is still unemployment; and
>unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
>and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
>exploiters of the masses.
Then too, there are the able-bodied on welfare. Tens of millions of
them. Since there is no labor shortage, we have to conclude that
there are no jobs for them.
NOW, the Republicans are pushing to exempt welfare people applying for
jobs from the protections of minimum wage. Don't you just LOVE
overpriviledged swine who want the rest of us on sustinance conditions
for their minor convenience?
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
>
=====================================================================
The eagle soars. He is master of the clouds, the atavar of all that
beat wings. He sees events, minute as a mouse, distant as the horizon.
He is bold, he is fierce, he is magnificent.
But weasels DON'T get sucked into jet engines.
--Based on a sig by mik...@korrnet.org, who probably had no idea what
I would do with it.
Be good, servile little citizen employees, and pay your taxes so the
rich don't have to.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Zepp
On Fri, 16 May 1997 19:38:05 -0500, "Christopher P. Reicher"
<c-re...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>Everybody please do the world a favor: Before you argue, learn about
>economics. This especially goes for those of you who swallow socialist
>arguments hook, line, and sinker.
>
>Friedman and Hayek are a good start from the more philosophical side of
>economics; there are some good textbooks out there too. Look
>selectively.
But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
some banana republic.
>
>--
>
>Christopher P. Reicher
>Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
>c-re...@nwu.edu
=====================================================================
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5lki7n$2...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Michael Lodman <nospam....@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
>>and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
>>exploiters of the masses.
>
>Then there are those who dabble in the job market to keep their benefits
>going, and hope a job doesn't land on them (unless it pays like the
>lottery).
>
Precisely. Like all those who say "yeah, there are jobs I could take,
but they don't pay a "living wage"." These jobs also probably don't
pay as much as all their freebies combined so it really doesn't make
sense to the lazy person to work for the same or less amount than they
can get for sitting at home watching Rikki Lake. Solution: cut the
freebies thus making the equation favor working.
>Almost everyone I know has cycled through unemployment at one time or
>another (contributing to your 1/20 statistic), almost no one has done it
>more than once or for any particularly long time.
>
>The bloodsuckers need to be cut off.
>
Mark D. Vincent
>Michael Lodman <nospam....@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>Old James keeps bringing up NAIRU whilst dodging the real meaning behind the
>>statistics, namely that it isn't 1/20 of the workforce purposely denied
>>the option of being productive, it's some larger percentage of the work
>>force cycling through unemployment between jobs. ...
>
>unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
>and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
>exploiters of the masses.
Loren, you should be cheering on the unemployed and looking for
HIGHER unemployment numbers. You have already come out against
working as it means you are allowing yourself to be exploited by
a "giant corporation". These unemployed are simply refusing to
have their labor stolen by an EEEEEVIL CEO. Solidarity!!!
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
>
Antid Oto
Michael Lodman wrote:
>
> In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
> Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > So what about that? Unemployment is still unemployment; and
> >unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
> >and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
> >exploiters of the masses.
>
> Then there are those who dabble in the job market to keep their benefits
> going, and hope a job doesn't land on them (unless it pays like the
> lottery).
>
> another (contributing to your 1/20 statistic), almost no one has done it
> more than once or for any particularly long time.
>
> The bloodsuckers need to be cut off.
During the Depression (capital "D") it wasn't 1/20, but 1/4 out of work,
and none could comfortably state that unemployment is mere "dabbling."
(In Zaire under the US-praised Mobutu Sese-Seko unemployment has grown
to 4/5. No amount of "looking," "preparing themselves" will overcome the
pressures of the US dominated world marketplace.) During the 1930s those
of Mr. Lodman's social class were debating throwing themselves out of
windows rather than face and join the poor they had been cursing and
condemning all their lives. Without welfare even the lower-level
privileged layers of the population would have gotten bloody. Today such
social and historical blindness is not so dangerous for them, so that
those who are being found these days committing suicide are old people,
mostly women, who know they cannot find work and will now without
welfare have no way to survive.
Those who decide whether and how well Mr. Lodman and the rest of us will
survive or have to plead with friends and relatives for help (since no
longer will the government serve to keep us alive) have established a
governmental which clearly informs us: unemployment is necessary in
order to keep down inflation- not "job cycling," mind you, but
unemployment. Capitalism doesn't work for the upper 1% of the income
hierarchy unless the bottom 99% faces the insecurity and often peril of
the viscious cycle of permanently eliminated access to livelihood.
Like ticks, the rich, corporate elite suck resources in blood and sweat
from the vast majority of the earth's population, bleeding us white.
Welfare accounted for less than 1% of the budget: corporate and military
pork is still hefted out to the predatory privileged in far larger
portions. Not even Mr. Lodman touches those sums, though he imagines he
sits in the favor of those few greedy bloodsuckers who do. Today perhaps
he does, like the well-heeled fido waiting for the tasty scraps from
master's table.
> The bloodsuckers need to be cut off.
Couldn't agree more wholeheartedly: let's start with the parasitic,
useless owners and dispensers of our livelihoods! Workers of the world
unite!
Mark D. Vincent
In article <337c60cb...@news.lava.net>,
Not as large?? there is NO comparison of today vs. the depression.
Why dont you talk to someone who was there before you try that lame
gambit.
>
>->No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
>
>So are job-seekers, in proportions higher than the jobs.
>
>->If they are not around where you are you can go somewhere where they
>->are.
>
>Name me a place with zero unemployment.
>
>-> Anyone who blames the fed for their unemployment has not tried too
>->hard. Never have I been denied a job with the prospective employer
>->telling me "I'm sorry, I can't hire you because interest rates just
>->got hiked and you may push wages too high".
>
>No, he just didn't say anything, he probably didn't even interveiw
>you, and if he rejected you it was because there were a lot of other
>people applying for the job too. Of course, even in a full-employment
>economy, there will be many people applying for any job. The
>difference is that anyone who wants to work will be able to.
>
>->Get real. Or better yet, get a job.
>
>I have two.
>
>Smell the coffee, Vincent. 1/20th of the work force is out of work.
>Maybe you think they're all as lazy as you are. I don't.
I smell the coffee every morning before I go to work. That is more
than can be said for many who roll out of bed sometime after noon
to go to the mailbox and collect their SSI check. I will cease
to believe they cannot get a job when I see no more HELP WANTED
signs around and a HELP WANTED section of a newspaper fatter
then almost any other section. 5% unemployment does not mean no
jobs.
Michael Lodman
In article <337e435f....@news.snowcrest.net>,
Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>Then too, there are the able-bodied on welfare. Tens of millions of
>them. Since there is no labor shortage, we have to conclude that
>there are no jobs for them.
Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
hanging out at a university). Factories are screaming for people,
the papers are full of jobs.
The conclusion is that these able-bodied simply don't want to work.
It's a lot easier to bleed the system.
Gav. McNett
> > In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
> >Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >> So what about that? Unemployment is still unemployment; and
> >>unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
> >>and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
> >>exploiters of the masses.
> >
> >Nearly everyone truly looking for work, and preparing themselves, find work.
> >Then there are those who dabble in the job market to keep their benefits
> >going, and hope a job doesn't land on them (unless it pays like the
> >lottery).
> >
>
> but they don't pay a "living wage"." These jobs also probably don't
> pay as much as all their freebies combined so it really doesn't make
> sense to the lazy person to work for the same or less amount than they
> can get for sitting at home watching Rikki Lake. Solution: cut the
> freebies thus making the equation favor working.
Hm. And how much would those "freebies" pay? I ask not rhetorically, but
in sincerity.
Van
jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
> In article <337e435f....@news.snowcrest.net>,
>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>Then too, there are the able-bodied on welfare. Tens of millions of
>>them. Since there is no labor shortage, we have to conclude that
>>there are no jobs for them.
>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
>hanging out at a university).
Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
>Factories are screaming for people,
>the papers are full of jobs.
In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
>The conclusion is that these able-bodied simply don't want to work.
>It's a lot easier to bleed the system.
Conclusion by whom? Another Phil Gramm clone crawls out of the woodwork.
Van
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"When dogma enters the brain,
all intellectual activity ceases"
-- Robert Anton Wilson
http://www.netusa1.net/~jbvm/
Visit the LoC Bookstore *Books for the liberal and proud*
http://www.netusa1.net/~jbvm/locbooks/
Pick of the Month:
Invisible Republic : Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes
by Greil Marcus
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0805033939/leftofcenterbookA/
------------------------------------------------------------
Zepp
On Sun, 18 May 1997 03:39:02 GMT, xjv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
>
>> In article <337e435f....@news.snowcrest.net>,
>>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>>Then too, there are the able-bodied on welfare. Tens of millions of
>>>them. Since there is no labor shortage, we have to conclude that
>>>there are no jobs for them.
>
>>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
>>hanging out at a university).
>
>Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
>
CalTech, though. Hi-tech bottle washer with incompetant social
skills.
>>Factories are screaming for people,
>>the papers are full of jobs.
>
>In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
>
Most of the jobs in our paper feature 800 numbers and "Request our
package for $24.95 today!"
>>The conclusion is that these able-bodied simply don't want to work.
>>It's a lot easier to bleed the system.
>
>Conclusion by whom? Another Phil Gramm clone crawls out of the woodwork.
>
>Van
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> "When dogma enters the brain,
> all intellectual activity ceases"
>
> -- Robert Anton Wilson
>
> http://www.netusa1.net/~jbvm/
>Visit the LoC Bookstore *Books for the liberal and proud*
> http://www.netusa1.net/~jbvm/locbooks/
>
>Pick of the Month:
> Invisible Republic : Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes
>
> by Greil Marcus
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0805033939/leftofcenterbookA/
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
=====================================================================
Michael Lodman
In article <5lm0pi$ckb$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
>jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
>>hanging out at a university).
>
>Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
Only to someone who hasn't yet learned the meaning of the name of the
machine I'm posting from.
>>Factories are screaming for people,
>>the papers are full of jobs.
>
>In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
So? Then they work fast food, telephone soliciting, or long haul trucking,
or they move.
James R. Olson, jr.
jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) wrote:
-> In article <5lhpai$d...@northshore.shore.net>,
->Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
->>In article <337e3ad5...@news.lava.net>,
->>James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
->>>Still haven't got a clue about NAIRU, do you? Unemployment maintained
->>>at ~5% in order to keep wages down? That means that 1/20th of the
->>>work force is purposely denied the option of being productive, no
->>>matter how much they may want to. It's like musical chairs, Mark,
->>>only instead of a chair being pulled out when the music plays, it's a
->>>job.
->>
->>This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
->>No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
->>If they are not around where you are you can go somewhere where they
->>are. Anyone who blames the fed for their unemployment has not tried too
->>hard. Never have I been denied a job with the prospective employer
->>telling me "I'm sorry, I can't hire you because interest rates just
->>got hiked and you may push wages too high". Get real. Or better yet,
->>get a job.
->
->Old James keeps bringing up NAIRU whilst dodging the real meaning behind the
->statistics, namely that it isn't 1/20 of the workforce purposely denied
->the option of being productive, it's some larger percentage of the work
->force cycling through unemployment between jobs. Magazine articles continue
->to stress the difference between this group, for whom the economic impact
->is somewhat lower wages on an annualized basis, and the chronic unemployable
->who wouldn't have a job no matter how hard you tried to give them one.
->
The U in NAIRU only counts those people who are actively seeking work
through OFFICIAL channels. This means visiting government operated
employmnent agencies, and those collecting unemployment insurance. It
does not count those who read the newspaper and pursue jobs through
the classified ads, for instance, unless they happen to be collecting
UI. It does not include those who have become discouraged at failure
in the job search. It does not include those who work less than 40
hours/week, because they can't find more work.
Lodman statess that every member of NAIRU's U is simply between jobs.
Apparently he also means to say that they aren't between jobs
involuntarily, based on this phrase, "it isn't 1/20 of the workforce
purposely denied the option of being productive." But by the official
definition of unemployment, that's PRECISELY what it is, it's people
who are actively looking for work, who aren't working. And when that
number gets too low, the Fed acts in such a way as to raise it. So
some percentage of the people counted in U are ones who have been
PURPOSELY put out of work.
There are certainly a group of chronic unemployable, generally due to
health or mental problems. I tend to believe that number is a lot
smaller than Lodman does. Perhaps he could provide some sort of
figures... naw, he never has in the past, why should he break a roll?
I also believe that we shouldn't force someone to starve because they
aren't able to hold down a job. I guess that makes me a
bleeding-heart. I also think that we should provide some sort of work
for anyone who wants it, structured in such a way that it won't keep
them out of the private work force when they are needed.
Side note: I have a friend who is one of the hardcore unemployable
that Lodman refers to. He suffers from a mild degree of paranoia,
probably schizophrenia. Whenever he gets a job, after a couple of
months, he starts having paranoid fantasies about the people he works
with, thinks they are following him home, hears them talking behind
his back, that sort of thing. So he can't keep a job, and you really
wouldn't want him working for you or with you.
He gets Food Stamps and disability pay of about $200/month, which
basically allow him to pay his rent and eat meagerly. He's also a
good worker in the short term, and has built up a network of people
who will hire him on a casual basis, so he makes enough money to buy
luxuries like soap and clothes and a TV. But he definitely can't make
enough to eat and pay rent that way.
Should he starve because he can't hold down a job? Without his
disability allowance and Food Stamps, he wouldn't even be able to do
the work that he does now.
Van
jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
> In article <5lm0pi$ckb$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
>>jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
>>>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
>>>hanging out at a university).
>>
>>Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
>Only to someone who hasn't yet learned the meaning of the name of the
>machine I'm posting from.
>>>Factories are screaming for people,
>>>the papers are full of jobs.
>>
>>In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
>So? Then they work fast food, telephone soliciting, or long haul trucking,
>or they move.
Yep - another member of the I got mine f**k you crowd checks in.
Michael Lodman
In article <337eff4d....@news.snowcrest.net>,
Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>CalTech, though. Hi-tech bottle washer with incompetant social
>skills.
Ah, yes, another fine example of Zepp and the liberal argument style. For
someone who foams at the mouth and calls people names you've got a lot
of balls referring to someone else as socially incompetent.
>Most of the jobs in our paper feature 800 numbers and "Request our
>package for $24.95 today!"
Where do you live, Zepp. Let verify that by looking at your paper.
I don't doubt you aren't even looking in the right place.
Insectus Pentius
Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
[snip truth about Greenspan(tm)]
: This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
: No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
Whatever it is you're smoking, I sure hope it doesn't show up in a PISS
TEST. What fuels this delusion of yours? I can't wait until they program
Deep Blue to downsize *YOU*. Then we'll see how easy it is to get a good
job.
--
Microsoft is living proof that a sales talent is vastly more useful in a
capitalist society than intelligence. A person with an IQ of 1,000 could
die destitute, but a cretin with a sales talent can become a billionaire
Michael Lodman
In article <33839fb6....@news.lava.net>,
James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
>Lodman statess that every member of NAIRU's U is simply between jobs.
>Apparently he also means to say that they aren't between jobs
>involuntarily, based on this phrase, "it isn't 1/20 of the workforce
>purposely denied the option of being productive." But by the official
>definition of unemployment, that's PRECISELY what it is, it's people
>who are actively looking for work, who aren't working. And when that
>number gets too low, the Fed acts in such a way as to raise it. So
>some percentage of the people counted in U are ones who have been
>PURPOSELY put out of work.
Again, it isn't 1/20 of the workforce, it's some fraction larger
cycling through periodic unemployment primarily due to slight
fluctuations in markets due in part to the Fed. If everyone didn't work
for one month out of the year, that'd be 1/12 unemployment, and
I have _no_ problem with helping these people out if need be.
I do have a problem with your contention to raise sympathy that says
that this 1/20 is the same people for extended periods of time.
For one thing, the government drops people from the statistics
after a period of time.
>I tend to believe that number is a lot
>smaller than Lodman does. Perhaps he could provide some sort of
>figures... naw, he never has in the past, why should he break a roll?
Figures? The same figures that discount the hard-core unemployed from
the unemployment percentages? If I had something I believe other than
hard numbers of the people actually drawing I'd use them, but it
is far too easy to play the system and mess up your precious
"statistics".
>Should he starve because he can't hold down a job? Without his
>disability allowance and Food Stamps, he wouldn't even be able to do
>the work that he does now.
Your friend lives pretty dammed good compared to most of the world.
He would even without the government handouts.
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5lo6ae$l94$7...@gail.ripco.com>,
Insectus Pentius <pen...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
>
>[snip truth about Greenspan(tm)]
>
>: This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
>: No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
>
>Whatever it is you're smoking, I sure hope it doesn't show up in a PISS
>TEST. What fuels this delusion of yours? I can't wait until they program
>Deep Blue to downsize *YOU*. Then we'll see how easy it is to get a good
>job.
>
>--
hee, hee. You jealous fool. You sit there frothing at the mouth, pounding
out your bitter venom while I and others maximize our own skills and
succeed. You think Deep Blue invented itself? You clearly know nothing
about software. It is not in decline it is on the rise as more and more
of everyday life goes digital. You sit there and wish ill on those
who go out and make a living. How sad.
>Microsoft is living proof that a sales talent is vastly more useful in a
>capitalist society than intelligence. A person with an IQ of 1,000 could
>die destitute, but a cretin with a sales talent can become a billionaire
>
>http://www.ripco.com/~pentius/
Loren Petrich
In article <337E89...@mcnett.org>, Gav. McNett <ga...@mcnett.org> wrote:
>Mark D. Vincent wrote:
>> Precisely. Like all those who say "yeah, there are jobs I could take,
>> but they don't pay a "living wage"."
So you would enjoy being dirt-poor, while your superiors live in
luxury with the help of the revenues that your labor makes possible???
Do you give back 90% of your salary to your boss, Mr. Vincent???
I sometimes wonder about corporate elitists like the Mark
Vincents of the world -- after visiting corporate boardrooms, do they
need to have their stomachs pumped? :-):-):-)
These jobs also probably don't
>> pay as much as all their freebies combined so it really doesn't make
>> sense to the lazy person to work for the same or less amount than they
>> can get for sitting at home watching Rikki Lake. Solution: cut the
>> freebies thus making the equation favor working.
>Hm. And how much would those "freebies" pay? I ask not rhetorically, but
>in sincerity.
He isn't joining them, so that means that he is not serious.
--
Mark D. Vincent
>>Mark D. Vincent wrote:
>
>>> Precisely. Like all those who say "yeah, there are jobs I could take,
>>> but they don't pay a "living wage"."
>
> So you would enjoy being dirt-poor, while your superiors live in
>luxury with the help of the revenues that your labor makes possible???
>
I would not enjoy being dirt-poor. That is why I work. I have no
problem wuth the fact that the heads of my corporation make big $$$.
Ya know why? Because they pay me fair market value for what I do.
I am happy to work, get paid, and help the company at the same time.
> Do you give back 90% of your salary to your boss, Mr. Vincent???
>
Nope. But I am forced to hand over about 40% to governments state and
federal.
> I sometimes wonder about corporate elitists like the Mark
>Vincents of the world -- after visiting corporate boardrooms, do they
>need to have their stomachs pumped? :-):-):-)
>
I do not visit boardrooms. I am far too busy using my labor to
increase revenues (my own and the companies').
> These jobs also probably don't
>>> pay as much as all their freebies combined so it really doesn't make
>>> sense to the lazy person to work for the same or less amount than they
>>> can get for sitting at home watching Rikki Lake. Solution: cut the
>>> freebies thus making the equation favor working.
>
>>Hm. And how much would those "freebies" pay? I ask not rhetorically, but
>>in sincerity.
>
> He isn't joining them, so that means that he is not serious.
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
>
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5lnauj$a2n$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
>jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
>
>> In article <5lm0pi$ckb$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
>>>>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
>>>>hanging out at a university).
>>>
>>>Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
>
>>Only to someone who hasn't yet learned the meaning of the name of the
>>machine I'm posting from.
>
>>>>Factories are screaming for people,
>>>>the papers are full of jobs.
>>>
>>>In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
>
>>So? Then they work fast food, telephone soliciting, or long haul trucking,
>>or they move.
>
>Yep - another member of the I got mine f**k you crowd checks in.
>
>Van
>--
How you get from "do the job that is around or move" to "f you"???
The statement is perfectly reasonable. If you wait around in a depressed
area for someone to come up to you and give you a job or create an
opportunity for you then you will most assuredly end up right where you
started. Opportunity does not always come a knockin'. Most often you have
to go get it. This may involve a change of location. Until you people
get this straight, you will not progress.
James R. Olson, jr.
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
->In article <337c60cb...@news.lava.net>,
->James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
->>->>
->>->>Still haven't got a clue about NAIRU, do you? Unemployment maintained
->>->>at ~5% in order to keep wages down? That means that 1/20th of the
->>->>work force is purposely denied the option of being productive, no
->>->>matter how much they may want to. It's like musical chairs, Mark,
->>->>only instead of a chair being pulled out when the music plays, it's a
->>->>job.
->>->
->>->This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work hard.
->>
->>Anyone who takes this argument seriously ought to read Orwell's _The
->>Road to Wigan Pier_, or Terkel's _Hard Times_. Both make the point
->>that the unemployed during the Depression were made to feel that it
->>was a personal failure that they were out of work, rather than an
->>effect of larger economic forces. The problem is not as large today
->>(although the official unemployment figures are heavy understatements
->>of the real level of unemployment) but people like Vincent are still
->>claiming that the unemployed are so out of choice.
->
->Not as large?? there is NO comparison of today vs. the depression.
->Why dont you talk to someone who was there before you try that lame
->gambit.
->
Hey, I can think of one comparison, conservative idiots still claim
that anyone without a job is lazy.
->I smell the coffee every morning before I go to work. That is more
->than can be said for many who roll out of bed sometime after noon
->to go to the mailbox and collect their SSI check. I will cease
->to believe they cannot get a job when I see no more HELP WANTED
->signs around and a HELP WANTED section of a newspaper fatter
->then almost any other section. 5% unemployment does not mean no
->jobs.
We've been through this before... you seem to be claiming that if
there are three applicants for every job, then the two who don't get
the job are lazy bums. If there are a hundred applicants for every
job, then the 99 who don't get hired are lazy bums.
You also keep dodging the fact that even if all three of them get
jobs, the Fed will crack down on the economy and make sure that three
more people lose their jobs. But according to you, that's because
they are lazy.
James R. Olson, jr.
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
->In article <5lki7n$2...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
->Michael Lodman <nospam....@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
->> In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
->>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
->>> So what about that? Unemployment is still unemployment; and
->>>unemployment figures count those looking for work without finding any,
->>>and not those that the right wing considers the bloodsuckers and
->>>exploiters of the masses.
->>
->>Nearly everyone truly looking for work, and preparing themselves, find work.
->>Then there are those who dabble in the job market to keep their benefits
->>going, and hope a job doesn't land on them (unless it pays like the
->>lottery).
->>
->
->Precisely. Like all those who say "yeah, there are jobs I could take,
->but they don't pay a "living wage"." These jobs also probably don't
->pay as much as all their freebies combined so it really doesn't make
->sense to the lazy person to work for the same or less amount than they
->can get for sitting at home watching Rikki Lake. Solution: cut the
->freebies thus making the equation favor working.
How about some facts, Mark? How much is disability income? How much
Food Stamps can a destitute person get each month? How does a person
qualify for "freebies," and how much do they get?
You're blowing hot air out your ignorant ass, punk. Put up!
James R. Olson, jr.
"Christopher P. Reicher" <c-re...@nwu.edu> wrote:
->Everybody please do the world a favor: Before you argue, learn about
->economics. This especially goes for those of you who swallow socialist
->arguments hook, line, and sinker.
->
->Friedman and Hayek are a good start from the more philosophical side of
->economics; there are some good textbooks out there too. Look
->selectively.
So we can swallow capitalist rationalizations hook line and sinker?
Homo economicus, nyuk nyuk! A science for a imaginary species!
Try reading Adam Smith, Keynes, and Galbraith.
James R. Olson, jr.
jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) wrote:
-> In article <5lm0pi$ckb$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
->>jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
->>>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
->>>hanging out at a university).
->>
->>Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
->
->Only to someone who hasn't yet learned the meaning of the name of the
->machine I'm posting from.
->
->>>Factories are screaming for people,
->>>the papers are full of jobs.
->>
->>In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
->
->So? Then they work fast food, telephone soliciting, or long haul trucking,
->or they move.
->
Sure there are a few places with low unemployment, but from what I
remember they were also places with low population, so one has to
wonder how long the condition would last if everyone in the bust areas
picked up and moved.
Still, the average for the whole country is about 5%, so even if
everyone moved hither and yon in search of a job, we'd still end up
with 1 out of 20 out of work, and the Fed is resolute about
maintaining that figure.
Zepp
On 18 May 1997 16:56:53 GMT, jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael
Lodman) wrote:
There's only one place to look in our paper, a weekly. The ads take
up a half to three-quarters of a page. It would be fun to watch you
describe how anyone should find the job listings, though. Something
tells me it's an area not within your personal expertise.
Loren Petrich
In article <5lop6k$2...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Michael Lodman <nospam....@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In article <33839fb6....@news.lava.net>,
>James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
>>Should he starve because he can't hold down a job? Without his
>>disability allowance and Food Stamps, he wouldn't even be able to do
>>the work that he does now.
>Your friend lives pretty dammed good compared to most of the world.
>He would even without the government handouts.
Then live like him, if he lives such a great life. Put your money
where your mouth is. Eat your own dogfood.
Harold Brashears
On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 1997 19:38:05 -0500, "Christopher P. Reicher"
><c-re...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Everybody please do the world a favor: Before you argue, learn about
>>economics. This especially goes for those of you who swallow socialist
>>arguments hook, line, and sinker.
>>
>>Friedman and Hayek are a good start from the more philosophical side of
>>economics; there are some good textbooks out there too. Look
>>selectively.
>
>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>some banana republic.
I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
We are already aware, Zeppy, from your own statements, that you have
no "facts and figures", like Eleanor the "paid apologist", but you
really should at least try to gather some occasionally.
Regards, Harold
----
"Why drag every government power to Washington so that a vast,
centralized government may devour the states and the liberty of
individuals as well? I say this amendment [the 16th, concerning
instituting an income tax] should be more carefully considered than
it has yet been considered."
- Rep. Samuel McCall of Massachusetts, 1909
Mark D. Vincent
In article <3383644c...@news.lava.net>,
As I have never applied or received any of these, I cannot provide
detailed figures. however, my assertions come from those who have
applied and received such benefits. They will tell you that there ARE
indeed jobs they could take but will not because the pay does not
match the freebies. Your hostile attitude shows your own insecurity as
you attempt to make a lame argument against undeniable truth.
Harold Brashears
On Thu, 15 May 1997 16:55:48 GMT, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
>brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
[edited]
>->I thought I told you before, but I guess not, that this is the case.
>->Over the last decade many CEO compensation packages have included
>->stock options instead of increases in base pay, at the insistence of
>->stockholders.
>
>And it's got _nothing_ to do with the lower rate of taxation on
>capital gains, does it? Nor does the notable chintzyness in dividends
>lately...
I don't know. Not being a tax expert and not getting any options
myself, I had not considered that. Maybe Eleanor could answer this,
or some tax expert. It is an interesting question though, thanks.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
----------
"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance
that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said
to be certain, except death and taxes."
---Benjamin Franklin, Letter, 13 Nov. 1789
Julian
Michael Lodman wrote:
>
> In article <5lm0pi$ckb$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
> >jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
> >
>
>
> >
>
Damn it! Stop using reasoning and logic with them! Make it fair!
Julian
James R. Olson, jr.
jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) wrote:
-> In article <33839fb6....@news.lava.net>,
->James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
->>Lodman statess that every member of NAIRU's U is simply between jobs.
->>Apparently he also means to say that they aren't between jobs
->>involuntarily, based on this phrase, "it isn't 1/20 of the workforce
->>purposely denied the option of being productive." But by the official
->>definition of unemployment, that's PRECISELY what it is, it's people
->>who are actively looking for work, who aren't working. And when that
->>number gets too low, the Fed acts in such a way as to raise it. So
->>some percentage of the people counted in U are ones who have been
->>PURPOSELY put out of work.
->
->Again, it isn't 1/20 of the workforce, it's some fraction larger
->cycling through periodic unemployment primarily due to slight
->fluctuations in markets due in part to the Fed. If everyone didn't work
->for one month out of the year, that'd be 1/12 unemployment, and
->I have _no_ problem with helping these people out if need be.
You're right, the portion that is counted is for the most part people
that are between jobs. The time spent between jobs, though, has a lot
to do with the unemployment rate, and every person beating the street
for work is, by definition, someone who wants a job and doesn't have
one. The Fed makes sure that that figure is in the area of 5%.
->
->I do have a problem with your contention to raise sympathy that says
->that this 1/20 is the same people for extended periods of time.
->For one thing, the government drops people from the statistics
->after a period of time.
A good part of the counted unemployment is people who cycle through
jobs often. There's also the uncounted number who are looking, but
not counted. It probably isn't in steady proportion to the official
unemployment rate. I'd guess that it rises during an extended
recession, as people exhaust their UI benefits and disappear from the
rolls without finding work, and falls during the early parts of a
recovery when new jobs are being created. I'm sure there must be some
sort of study on the matter, I'll see if I can dig anything up.
->
->>I tend to believe that number is a lot
->>smaller than Lodman does. Perhaps he could provide some sort of
->>figures... naw, he never has in the past, why should he break a roll?
->
->Figures? The same figures that discount the hard-core unemployed from
->the unemployment percentages? If I had something I believe other than
->hard numbers of the people actually drawing I'd use them, but it
->is far too easy to play the system and mess up your precious
->"statistics".
Heh heh. Can't break that roll, can you?
->
->>Should he starve because he can't hold down a job? Without his
->>disability allowance and Food Stamps, he wouldn't even be able to do
->>the work that he does now.
->
->Your friend lives pretty dammed good compared to most of the world.
->He would even without the government handouts.
->
Have you applied for a job with the Psychic Friends Network yet?
James R. Olson, jr.
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
->On Thu, 15 May 1997 16:55:48 GMT, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
->R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
->
->>brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
->
->[edited]
->
->>->I thought I told you before, but I guess not, that this is the case.
->>->Over the last decade many CEO compensation packages have included
->>->stock options instead of increases in base pay, at the insistence of
->>->stockholders.
->>
->>And it's got _nothing_ to do with the lower rate of taxation on
->>capital gains, does it? Nor does the notable chintzyness in dividends
->>lately...
->
->I don't know. Not being a tax expert and not getting any options
->myself, I had not considered that. Maybe Eleanor could answer this,
->or some tax expert. It is an interesting question though, thanks.
->
I think Andrew Hall may have some ideas on this. Mybe we should try
to attract his attention.
Loren Petrich
In article <5lqcbu$s...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>I would not enjoy being dirt-poor. That is why I work.
Without, of course, every trying to get a good deal for yourself,
simply quietly accepting what those in charge give to you.
I have no
>problem wuth the fact that the heads of my corporation make big $$$.
Again, I'm sure you're giving big chunks of your salary to them.
>Ya know why? Because they pay me fair market value for what I do.
This reminds me of the old joke about how many supply-siders it
takes to screw in a light bulb: they don't even try, because they prefer
to let the free market do it.
>> Do you give back 90% of your salary to your boss, Mr. Vincent???
>Nope.
So you *admit* that you are selfish and greedy? :-):-):-)
But I am forced to hand over about 40% to governments state and
>federal.
According to a favorite ultracapitalist position about
employment, you have only *two* legitimate choices: loving it or leaving
it. So take your pick, Mr. Vincent.
Olivier
In article <5lo6ae$l94$7...@gail.ripco.com>, pen...@ripco.com says...>: This is simply an excuse for those who don't wish to work or work
hard.
>: No one is denied the option of being productive. Jobs are everywhere.
>
>Whatever it is you're smoking, I sure hope it doesn't show up in a PISS
>TEST. What fuels this delusion of yours? I can't wait until they program
>Deep Blue to downsize *YOU*. Then we'll see how easy it is to get a good
>job.
>
>--
>capitalist society than intelligence. A person with an IQ of 1,000 could
>die destitute, but a cretin with a sales talent can become a billionaire
AHA you have just discovered the joys of CAPITALISM - Great hey.
That means even a cretin like me can make a bil.
Cheers
Olivier
>
>http://www.ripco.com/~pentius/
Zepp
>On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 1997 19:38:05 -0500, "Christopher P. Reicher"
>><c-re...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Everybody please do the world a favor: Before you argue, learn about
>>>economics. This especially goes for those of you who swallow socialist
>>>arguments hook, line, and sinker.
>>>
>>>Friedman and Hayek are a good start from the more philosophical side of
>>>economics; there are some good textbooks out there too. Look
>>>selectively.
>>
>>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>>some banana republic.
>
>I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
>described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
I moved forward a step in the dialogue--a practice you should learn to
emulate. The results of their policies would be fascism. They, on
the other hand, are just crackpots.
>
>We are already aware, Zeppy, from your own statements, that you have
>no "facts and figures", like Eleanor the "paid apologist", but you
>really should at least try to gather some occasionally.
My, my, my disagreement with Eleanor really has got your undies in a
knot. Are you guys an "item"? C'mon! Fess up! Maybe we can get
Rush to broadcast this bit of news!
>Regards, Harold
>----
>"Why drag every government power to Washington so that a vast,
>centralized government may devour the states and the liberty of
>individuals as well? I say this amendment [the 16th, concerning
>instituting an income tax] should be more carefully considered than
>it has yet been considered."
> - Rep. Samuel McCall of Massachusetts, 1909
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====================================================================
Zepp
On 18 May 1997 04:10:18 GMT, jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael
Lodman) wrote:
> In article <337e435f....@news.snowcrest.net>,
>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>Then too, there are the able-bodied on welfare. Tens of millions of
>>them. Since there is no labor shortage, we have to conclude that
>>there are no jobs for them.
>
>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
>hanging out at a university). Factories are screaming for people,
>the papers are full of jobs.
Dittoheads. You gotta love 'em. I know something inconvenient about
the economy, therefore I must be a university student, or worse, on
the faculty. The answer is neither.
I'll repeat: there is no labor shortage. You'll read in the paper of
decent job opportunities getting anywhere from 50 to 5,000 applicants.
Even though I'm not hiring, I get at least one applicant come in off
the street for a cold-call interview in our tiny town. There are
people desperate for work--yes, even with "only" 4.9% unemployment,
and they outnumber the jobs available by hundreds to one.
>
>The conclusion is that these able-bodied simply don't want to work.
>It's a lot easier to bleed the system.
So why aren't you out "bleeding the system?"
Mark D. Vincent
In article <3383238d...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 1997 02:49:49 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 May 1997 18:37:37 GMT, brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu
>>(Harold Brashears) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>
>>>>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>>>>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>>>>some banana republic.
>>>
>>>I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
>>>described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
>>
>>I moved forward a step in the dialogue--a practice you should learn to
>>emulate. The results of their policies would be fascism. They, on
>>the other hand, are just crackpots.
>
>ignorant as I had one time thought. Had you read anything written by
>these two, you would understand that their policies, if implemented,
>would not lead to fascism, since both envision a smaller role for the
>state. Unlike your own recommendations, which call for a larger state
>role.
>
The disconnect here Harold is that when someone knocks on Zeppo's door
and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
believes it.
Loren Petrich
In article <5lvdlb$9...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>The disconnect here Harold is that when someone knocks on Zeppo's door
>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>believes it.
What cops and soldiers do *not* say that?
Harold Brashears
I sent Andrew e-mail, with the entire text above quoted. With the
proviso that it applies only to the plan he knows about, that of his
organization, Andrew reports that the when you become vested and
actually own the stock, you are taxed on that valuation as income, not
capital gains. If you keep the stock, the basis becomes that price
and you will pay capital gains on any increase in value.
Regards, Harold
----
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments
by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
---Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice, 1916 - 1939.
RHA
>Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 02:49:49 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 May 1997 18:37:37 GMT, brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu
>>>(Harold Brashears) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>
>>[edit]
>>
>>>>>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>>>>>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>>>>>some banana republic.
>>>>
>>>>I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
>>>>described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
>>>
>>>I moved forward a step in the dialogue--a practice you should learn to
>>>emulate. The results of their policies would be fascism. They, on
>>>the other hand, are just crackpots.
>>
>>You repeat your error, and further convince me that you are indeed as
>>ignorant as I had one time thought. Had you read anything written by
>>these two, you would understand that their policies, if implemented,
>>would not lead to fascism, since both envision a smaller role for the
>>state. Unlike your own recommendations, which call for a larger state
>>role.
>>
>
>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>believes it.
Hmmmm, I wonder what Mr. Vincent's response would be to, "Hi,
I'm from the government and you are drafted." Resist or comply?
--
rha
mike...@austin.ibm.com
In article <5lvpq9$n...@northshore.shore.net>, m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) writes:
> In article <5lvbfk$jsa$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
> Insectus Pentius <pen...@ripco.com> wrote:
> >
> >Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
> >
> >: As I have never applied or received any of these, I cannot provide
> >: detailed figures. however, my assertions come from those who have
> >: applied and received such benefits. They will tell you that there ARE
> >: indeed jobs they could take but will not because the pay does not
> >: match the freebies. Your hostile attitude shows your own insecurity as
> >: you attempt to make a lame argument against undeniable truth.
> >
> >Why are the wages so low then? Certainly, welfare people are NOT the ones
>
> What wages do you speak of? Also, define "low". This term is highly
> relative.
>
> >buying all the townhomes and Lexuses. Do you expect these people to work
> >for next to free and live in thatch huts, which are illegal due to
> >zoning/building laws? If we are committed to having a nation of cheap
> >labour, are you willing to lehalise thatch huts????
> >
>
> Who is committed to having a nation of "cheap" labor? Define "cheap".
>
>
> >--
> >Microsoft is living proof that a sales talent is vastly more useful in a
> >capitalist society than intelligence. A person with an IQ of 1,000 could
> >die destitute, but a cretin with a sales talent can become a billionaire
> >
> >http://www.ripco.com/~pentius/
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
> m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is worth discussion, but you guys are shooting from the hip. Most of the
data you need is commonly available. Real wages peaked in 1972, and have been
on a downtrend ever since. CEO real wages are going out of sight and worker
wages are going down. Trace the history of real wages, CEO wages, and taxes and
you will have your answer. The country is more prosperous when rich people pay
higher taxes and more money is payed to the workers. Any other system just
causes poverty and a few people to get rich. Like Mexico.
Rush will just have to pay more on his ten million a year. Trace the history
of Social Security taxes. They only apply to 60,000 in wages. Is this regressive?
Hint: YES.
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
Harold Brashears
On Wed, 21 May 1997 02:49:49 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>On Mon, 19 May 1997 18:37:37 GMT, brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu
>(Harold Brashears) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
[edit]
>>>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>>>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>>>some banana republic.
>>
>>I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
>>described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
>
>I moved forward a step in the dialogue--a practice you should learn to
>emulate. The results of their policies would be fascism. They, on
>the other hand, are just crackpots.
You repeat your error, and further convince me that you are indeed as
ignorant as I had one time thought. Had you read anything written by
these two, you would understand that their policies, if implemented,
would not lead to fascism, since both envision a smaller role for the
state. Unlike your own recommendations, which call for a larger state
role.
[deleted personal comments]
Regards, Harold
-------
"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always
come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a
history of resistance."
-----Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), 9 Sept. 1912,
New York Press Club.
Mark D. Vincent
Insectus Pentius
Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
: As I have never applied or received any of these, I cannot provide
: detailed figures. however, my assertions come from those who have
: applied and received such benefits. They will tell you that there ARE
: indeed jobs they could take but will not because the pay does not
: match the freebies. Your hostile attitude shows your own insecurity as
: you attempt to make a lame argument against undeniable truth.
Why are the wages so low then? Certainly, welfare people are NOT the ones
buying all the townhomes and Lexuses. Do you expect these people to work
for next to free and live in thatch huts, which are illegal due to
zoning/building laws? If we are committed to having a nation of cheap
labour, are you willing to lehalise thatch huts????
--
Zepp
Harold Brashears
On Wed, 21 May 1997 18:39:20 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
> What cops and soldiers do *not* say that?
It would be my suggestion that those cops and soldiers who work for a
small government, with clearly enumerated and limited powers which are
understood and adhered to, would be the less offensive.
Those who work for a government with the power to give you everything
you want, will be less deferential.
Zepp
On 21 May 1997 14:07:39 -0400, m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>In article <3383238d...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 02:49:49 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 May 1997 18:37:37 GMT, brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu
>>>(Harold Brashears) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>
>>[edit]
>>
>>>>>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>>>>>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>>>>>some banana republic.
>>>>
>>>>I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
>>>>described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
>>>
>>>I moved forward a step in the dialogue--a practice you should learn to
>>>emulate. The results of their policies would be fascism. They, on
>>>the other hand, are just crackpots.
>>
>>You repeat your error, and further convince me that you are indeed as
>>ignorant as I had one time thought. Had you read anything written by
>>these two, you would understand that their policies, if implemented,
>>would not lead to fascism, since both envision a smaller role for the
>>state. Unlike your own recommendations, which call for a larger state
>>role.
I understood your gist the first time. What you DON'T understand is
if government of the people is weakened, other forces move in, and
restrengthen it--at our expense. Libertarians all think that since
power rests with government, if you have less goverment, you have less
power. No. Somebody else merely picks up the reins. In this case,
it would be the corporations, who would love a fascist state.
>>
>
>The disconnect here Harold is that when someone knocks on Zeppo's door
>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>believes it.
And big business is your friend, and has only your best interests at
heart. Isn't that so, Mark?
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
> m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================================
Zepp
>In article <5lvdlb$9...@northshore.shore.net>,
>Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>>The disconnect here Harold is that when someone knocks on Zeppo's door
>>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>>believes it.
>
> What cops and soldiers do *not* say that?
Well, I -don't- believe I read of that particular phrase being used at
Waco. 'Course, I could be wrong. Maybe Koresh replied, "Hi, I'm
Jesus, and I don't need no stinkin' batch."
>
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
>
=====================================================================
Mark D. Vincent
In article <3384489b....@news.snowcrest.net>,
>>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>>believes it.
>
>heart. Isn't that so, Mark?
I can use an association with a business (big or small) to benefit both.
If I feel at any time that the relationship is not benefitting me
sufficiently I can break the connection and seek a better partner.
With government, I have no such freedom.
>>--
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
>> m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>=====================================================================
>The eagle soars. He is master of the clouds, the atavar of all that
>beat wings. He sees events, minute as a mouse, distant as the horizon.
>He is bold, he is fierce, he is magnificent.
>
>But weasels DON'T get sucked into jet engines.
>
>--Based on a sig by mik...@korrnet.org, who probably had no idea what
> I would do with it.
>
>Be good, servile little citizen employees, and pay your taxes so the
>rich don't have to.
>
>
>
> Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
>=====================================================================
>When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
>spambots.
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5m034f$s...@praline.no.neosoft.com>,
>>In article <3383238d...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>>Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 02:49:49 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 May 1997 18:37:37 GMT, brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu
>>>>(Harold Brashears) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>
>>>[edit]
>>>
>>>>>>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>>>>>>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>>>>>>some banana republic.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
>>>>>described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
>>>>
>>>>I moved forward a step in the dialogue--a practice you should learn to
>>>>emulate. The results of their policies would be fascism. They, on
>>>>the other hand, are just crackpots.
>>>
>>>You repeat your error, and further convince me that you are indeed as
>>>ignorant as I had one time thought. Had you read anything written by
>>>these two, you would understand that their policies, if implemented,
>>>would not lead to fascism, since both envision a smaller role for the
>>>state. Unlike your own recommendations, which call for a larger state
>>>role.
>>>
>>
>>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>>believes it.
>
> I'm from the government and you are drafted." Resist or comply?
>--
>rha
Unlike war hero Clinton, I would comply. But just what does that
have to do with the current topic Ricky?
b
In article <5m1kai$r...@northshore.shore.net>
>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>
>>And big business is your friend, and has only your best interests at
>>heart. Isn't that so, Mark?
>
>I can use an association with a business (big or small) to benefit both.
>If I feel at any time that the relationship is not benefitting me
>sufficiently I can break the connection and seek a better partner.
>With government, I have no such freedom.
are very few reasons for that to be the case, care to inform us
which one of them it is?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."
Mark D. Vincent
In article <17B76A37AS...@mizzou1.missouri.edu>,
b <C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>In article <5m1kai$r...@northshore.shore.net>
>m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) writes:
>
>>In article <3384489b....@news.snowcrest.net>,
>>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>And big business is your friend, and has only your best interests at
>>>heart. Isn't that so, Mark?
>>
>>I can use an association with a business (big or small) to benefit both.
>>If I feel at any time that the relationship is not benefitting me
>>sufficiently I can break the connection and seek a better partner.
>>With government, I have no such freedom.
>
>What, you're forcibly prevented from leaving the country? There
>are very few reasons for that to be the case, care to inform us
>which one of them it is?
>
So I take it you are opposed to democracy? I must either live with
oppressive government or leave? I cannot attempt to change it?
I love all you big government fans - you say "shut up, pay whatever
you are told to pay and if you don't like it - leave". As I cannot
find another country where freedom and opportunity are as great as
they are here, that is hardly a reasonable option. And, hey, isn't it
people like you that go ballistic when a mega-rich guy renounces his
citizenship and moves to a Carribean island to avoid confiscatory
taxation??? Isn't that what you recommend? You say "shut up and pay".
Clearly you support serfdom.
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>"He deserves death."
>"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
>that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
>to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
>ends."
Alan Bomberger
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com (Loren
Petrich) wrote:
> Especially as many right-wingers are outraged at President
> Clinton's draft-dodging attempts. In fact, I wonder what the right wing
> would have thought if he had served in the National Guard. I suspect that
> they'd be repeating the criticisms often made of Dan Quayle's NG service.
I am not nearly as upset by his draft dodging as his lying about it.
--
My opinions are free, worth nothing, and not Apple's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
<http://www.webcom.com/thinker> Hypertext editor for creative people.
Michael Lodman
In article <3382f30b....@news.snowcrest.net>,
Because in my family, we were taught that that isn't the right thing to do.
You know, "morals".
J. Hancock
Mark D. Vincent wrote:
> I would not enjoy being dirt-poor. That is why I work. I have no
> problem wuth the fact that the heads of my corporation make big $$$.
Yet another satisfied peon promoted until he can no longer
do his job well, and thus he stagnates there, dreading the
day when his subordinates tell his boss just how lame of a
job he's doing.
> > Do you give back 90% of your salary to your boss, Mr. Vincent???
> Nope. But I am forced to hand over about 40% to governments state and
> federal.
You're a dog buscuit if you think that state and fed tax
weren't already factored into the salary offer you got from
your employer. If your state tax is 20% and your state tax
was eliminated, one of two things will happen. Either every
employer in state cuts salaries by 20% or all the prices in
state go up by 20%. Capitalist evolution in action.
-------------
The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.
Michael Lodman
In article <33805e2f....@news.snowcrest.net>,
Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>Where do you live, Zepp. Let verify that by looking at your paper.
>>I don't doubt you aren't even looking in the right place.
>
>There's only one place to look in our paper, a weekly. The ads take
>up a half to three-quarters of a page. It would be fun to watch you
>describe how anyone should find the job listings, though. Something
>tells me it's an area not within your personal expertise.
For all your running off at the mouth, Zepp, this still doesn't let me
verify the state of jobs in your paper.
Michael Lodman
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Then live like him, if he lives such a great life. Put your money
>where your mouth is. Eat your own dogfood.
Why should I? I work so I don't have to. You're free to split whatever
you have if you are feeling sorry for him though.
Insectus Pentius
Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
: So I take it you are opposed to democracy? I must either live with
: oppressive government or leave? I cannot attempt to change it?
Why can't your opponents use the "Love it ot leave it" line?
: I love all you big government fans - you say "shut up, pay whatever
: you are told to pay and if you don't like it - leave". As I cannot
And you tell us to put up with low-arse wages and shoddy living conditions
while our bosses fly around in private jets, etc. etc.... or leave.
: find another country where freedom and opportunity are as great as
: they are here, that is hardly a reasonable option. And, hey, isn't it
: people like you that go ballistic when a mega-rich guy renounces his
: citizenship and moves to a Carribean island to avoid confiscatory
: taxation??? Isn't that what you recommend? You say "shut up and pay".
: Clearly you support serfdom.
Look who's supporting serfdom. Your side.
James R. Olson, jr.
ga...@dialnet.nett (Ford) wrote:
->On Thu, 22 May 1997 13:57:23 -0700, "Bill D." <bi...@soDELETEca.com>
->wrote:
->
->>Alan Bomberger wrote:
->>>
->>> In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com (Loren
->>> Petrich) wrote:
->>>
->>> > Especially as many right-wingers are outraged at President
->>> > Clinton's draft-dodging attempts. In fact, I wonder what the right wing
->>> > would have thought if he had served in the National Guard. I suspect that
->>> > they'd be repeating the criticisms often made of Dan Quayle's NG service.
->>>
->>> I am not nearly as upset by his draft dodging as his lying about it.
->>
->>Clinton did the right thing. So did everyone else who avoided service
->>in Nam. If everyone had done the same they would have all been heroes.
->>The war would have ended, saving thousands of American lives and
->>billions of our dollars. But, alas, too many people fall into line
->>too easily and the draft dodgers come out like bums.
->
->Unmitigated truth and common sense. Maybe some day we'll learn to
->keep our noses out of other country's civil wars unless it is DIRECTLY
->in the interest of the United States to do so.
Yes! I've been saying for years that the draft dodgers were the real
heroes of the Viet Nam episode. Of course, the Chicken Hawks are a
different matter...
James R. Olson, jr.
kbro...@wwa.zcom (keith) wrote:
->In article <5lo311$g...@praline.no.neosoft.com>, ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com
->says...
->>
->>In article <5lnr3j$mq7$1...@kirin.wwa.com>, keith <kbro...@wwa.zcom> wrote:
->
->>> Inflation erodes the value of bonds. Bonds owned lose value
->>
->> False. The price of any investment asset includes an estimate
->> of inflation. Greenspan is actually increasing return on investment
->> by reducing inflationary risk. The ordinary person pays for that
->> reduction of risk. This is elementary financial theory.
->
-> This says nothing about market risk.
->
-> 30-yr bonds at 6%. Market yield moves to 8%,
-> 6% bonds will decline in value until they effectively
-> yield 8%. Lower market value.
And the real point is that the poor are kept unemployed in order to
protect the luxuries of the rich. The economy is kept below its
potential in order to maintain and expand proportional distribution in
favor of the rich.
Small children go to bed hungry so that the investors can drive
Mercedes.
James R. Olson, jr.
Julian <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
->Michael Lodman wrote:
->>
->> In article <5lm0pi$ckb$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
->> >jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
->> >>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
->> >>hanging out at a university).
->> >
->> >Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
->>
->> Only to someone who hasn't yet learned the meaning of the name of the
->> machine I'm posting from.
->>
->> >>Factories are screaming for people,
->> >>the papers are full of jobs.
->> >
->> >In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
->>
->> So? Then they work fast food, telephone soliciting, or long haul trucking,
->> or they move.
->
->Damn it! Stop using reasoning and logic with them! Make it fair!
Yeah! Try using facts and information!
James R. Olson, jr.
kbro...@wwa.zcom (keith) wrote:
->
-> Greenspan isn't taking interest rates anywhere they aren't likely
-> to go on their own. Yes with economic strength usually comes
-> inflationary pressures. The bond market doesn't know how to take
-> full employment. If & when we get inflation rolling rates do
-> go higher. Seems to me this is a function of the capital markets
-> and little else.
->
-> Granted we may be able to maintain much faster growth without
-> igniting inflation. But in the not so distant past, we haven't.
->
I've heard this argument that Greenspan follows, rather than leading,
before. But if that is so, why do we have Greenspan at all? Does he
have an effect, or not? If he only follows, why does the stock market
display such anxiety around his announcements?
b
In article <5m1veu$b...@northshore.shore.net>
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) writes:
>In article <17B76A37AS...@mizzou1.missouri.edu>,
>b <C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>In article <5m1kai$r...@northshore.shore.net>
>>m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) writes:
>>
>>>I can use an association with a business (big or small) to benefit both.
>>>If I feel at any time that the relationship is not benefitting me
>>>sufficiently I can break the connection and seek a better partner.
>>>With government, I have no such freedom.
>>
>>What, you're forcibly prevented from leaving the country? There
>>are very few reasons for that to be the case, care to inform us
>>which one of them it is?
>
>oppressive government or leave? I cannot attempt to change it?
from what I wrote? I merely pointed out that you were wrong -
you *do* have a choice as to which government you wish to live under.
Do you deny this is the case? Perhaps you meant that you cannot
get exactly the government you want. Well, I'm sorry, but that's
the way the business world works too. I want a car as sporty as a
Lamborgini that gets eighty miles to the gallon and only needs a
tuneup once every 200,000 miles. The fact that no such car is
available on the market does not make me cry out at the unfairness
of it all; like most people, I attempt to make an intelligent com-
promise.
>I love all you big government fans - you say "shut up, pay whatever
>you are told to pay and if you don't like it - leave". As I cannot
>they are here, that is hardly a reasonable option. And, hey, isn't it
oh, never mind :-) And I'm not a 'big government' fan, at least not
insofar as I understand the common useage of the term.
>people like you that go ballistic when a mega-rich guy renounces his
>citizenship and moves to a Carribean island to avoid confiscatory
>taxation??? Isn't that what you recommend? You say "shut up and pay".
>Clearly you support serfdom.
intentions to me I have not voiced either explicitly or implicitly.
All I have done is to point out that your initial statement was
wrong, and I think even you will agree that for someone to pronounce
something you have written to be false is not tantamount to supporting
serfdom. At least, I hope you do.
Loren Petrich
In article <5m034f$s...@praline.no.neosoft.com>,
RHA <ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com> wrote:
>In article <5lvdlb$9...@northshore.shore.net>,
>Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>>The disconnect here Harold is that when someone knocks on Zeppo's door
>>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>>believes it.
> Hmmmm, I wonder what Mr. Vincent's response would be to, "Hi,
> I'm from the government and you are drafted." Resist or comply?
Especially as many right-wingers are outraged at President
Clinton's draft-dodging attempts. In fact, I wonder what the right wing
would have thought if he had served in the National Guard. I suspect that
they'd be repeating the criticisms often made of Dan Quayle's NG service.
Bill D.
>
> > Especially as many right-wingers are outraged at President
> > Clinton's draft-dodging attempts. In fact, I wonder what the right wing
> > would have thought if he had served in the National Guard. I suspect that
> > they'd be repeating the criticisms often made of Dan Quayle's NG service.
>
Clinton did the right thing. So did everyone else who avoided service
in Nam. If everyone had done the same they would have all been heroes.
The war would have ended, saving thousands of American lives and
billions of our dollars. But, alas, too many people fall into line
Ford
On Thu, 22 May 1997 13:57:23 -0700, "Bill D." <bi...@soDELETEca.com>
Unmitigated truth and common sense. Maybe some day we'll learn to
keep our noses out of other country's civil wars unless it is DIRECTLY
in the interest of the United States to do so.
F. Prefect
Not everyone can be smart, but no one needs to revel in
ignorance. Except of course, republicans........
For them it's a job requirement.
Insectus Pentius
Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
: What wages do you speak of? Also, define "low". This term is highly
: relative.
Workers' wages.
: Who is committed to having a nation of "cheap" labor? Define "cheap".
It is obvious with the union-busting, immigration overload, pro-business
legislation, NAFTA, GATT, etc. etc. that we are committing ourselves to
competing by cheap labour. It's really notable that bReagan did not do
anything to try to bust up the _Screen Actors' Guild_. Why was THAT union
the only one that Reagan thought was good for IT'S workers?
Zepp
On Tue, 20 May 1997 22:10:45 -0400, Julian <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>Michael Lodman wrote:
>>
>> In article <5lm0pi$ckb$1...@news.netusa1.net>, Van <xjv...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) banged out:
>> >>Yeah, right. No labor shortage. Where HAVE you been (wait, don't tell me,
>> >>hanging out at a university).
>> >
>> >Curious statement for someone posting from an edu account.
>>
>> Only to someone who hasn't yet learned the meaning of the name of the
>> machine I'm posting from.
>>
>> >>Factories are screaming for people,
>> >>the papers are full of jobs.
>> >
>> >In my area it's fast food, telephone soliciting, and long haul truckers.
>>
>> So? Then they work fast food, telephone soliciting, or long haul trucking,
>> or they move.
>
>Damn it! Stop using reasoning and logic with them! Make it fair!
Yes. Let's do that.
Have you ever had to finance your own move? I bet you haven't. A
move to an adjoining state can reasonably cost a family about $8,000,
assuming they own furniture and there's a couple of kids. My last
move in the same state, without kids, cost over $4,000. Now, I don't
know a lot of people on welfare who can absorb an $8.000 hit. Do you?
I don't know many who can even afford bus far to a city 500 miles
away.
For that matter, not many people on unemployment have $8,000 to spare.
Thanks to supply-siders and corporate greed, most sovereign American
citizens live paycheck to paycheck. They cover rent/mortgage,
utilities, car payments, and miscellaneous, and there's little or
nothing left, except maybe enough for a weekly trip to the movies for
the kids.
>
And of course, there's that pesky job shortage. With millions of
people out of work, there's only hundreds of thousands of jobs
available. It's not unusual for a job hunt to take six months, and
that is with day-to-day searching, with networking and scanning the
want ads and all of that.
How do you or your chum Lodman propose to adress this issue? Have you
ever thought about it? It's clear you've never had to look for work,
never wondered how you'll catch next month's mortgage. Why don't you
tell us this truth that you think will set us all free?
>
>Julian
--borrowing Zepp's account.
--header munged to foil spambots; remove the extra "p"
Zepp
On 22 May 1997 10:13:38 -0400, m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>In article <3384489b....@news.snowcrest.net>,
>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>On 21 May 1997 14:07:39 -0400, m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3383238d...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>>>Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 02:49:49 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 19 May 1997 18:37:37 GMT, brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu
>>>>>(Harold Brashears) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 17 May 1997 23:52:07 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[edit]
>>>>
>>>>>>>But if we read your right-wing crackpot psuedo economists, all will be
>>>>>>>better. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want fascism, I'll go live in
>>>>>>>some banana republic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you err in implying that either Hayek or Friedman can be
>>>>>>described as "fascist". I think you reveal your ignorance here.
>>>>>
>>>>>I moved forward a step in the dialogue--a practice you should learn to
>>>>>emulate. The results of their policies would be fascism. They, on
>>>>>the other hand, are just crackpots.
>>>>
>>>>You repeat your error, and further convince me that you are indeed as
>>>>ignorant as I had one time thought. Had you read anything written by
>>>>these two, you would understand that their policies, if implemented,
>>>>would not lead to fascism, since both envision a smaller role for the
>>>>state. Unlike your own recommendations, which call for a larger state
>>>>role.
>>
>>I understood your gist the first time. What you DON'T understand is
>>if government of the people is weakened, other forces move in, and
>>restrengthen it--at our expense. Libertarians all think that since
>>power rests with government, if you have less goverment, you have less
>>power. No. Somebody else merely picks up the reins. In this case,
>>it would be the corporations, who would love a fascist state.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The disconnect here Harold is that when someone knocks on Zeppo's door
>>>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>>>believes it.
>>
>>And big business is your friend, and has only your best interests at
>>heart. Isn't that so, Mark?
>
>I can use an association with a business (big or small) to benefit both.
>If I feel at any time that the relationship is not benefitting me
>sufficiently I can break the connection and seek a better partner.
>With government, I have no such freedom.
Well, of COURSE you have that freedom, Mark. There's no law saying
you must live in America, and must be an American. And if you have
any talents at all, there are lots of third-world countries with low
tax rates where you could probably make a fairly comfortable living.
But for all your Adam Smith 101 rhapsodizing, you seem to have not
responded to my inferrence that perhaps big business does not have
your best interests at heart. Is it impossible for you to agree to
such a statement, little lackey?
Loren Petrich
In article <5m1veu$b...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>So I take it you are opposed to democracy? I must either live with
>oppressive government or leave? I cannot attempt to change it?
Mr. Vincent, you never tire of lecturing others about how we
ought to either love or leave our jobs and our purchases; but when the
same thing is thrown at you and your friends as regards government, you
scream your heads off.
>I love all you big government fans - you say "shut up, pay whatever
>you are told to pay and if you don't like it - leave". As I cannot
>find another country where freedom and opportunity are as great as
>they are here, that is hardly a reasonable option.
What's "freedom" and what's "opportunity"? And if you mean what I
think you mean, Mr. Vincent, you can find plenty of both in Albania.
And, hey, isn't it
>people like you that go ballistic when a mega-rich guy renounces his
>citizenship and moves to a Carribean island to avoid confiscatory
>taxation??? Isn't that what you recommend?
It's wonderful to watch right-wingers turn from rigorous
authoritarians to whining teenagers when it comes to taxes.
And if someone wants to hide out in some Caribbean island, let
him do so. But he ought to accept that the US gov't will not protect him
anymore, and that he ought to abide by the restrictions the US gov't
places on visiting foreigners.
keith
In article <338f646c....@news.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
says...
>
>kbro...@wwa.zcom (keith) wrote:
>
>
>->
>-> Greenspan isn't taking interest rates anywhere they aren't likely
>-> to go on their own. Yes with economic strength usually comes
>-> inflationary pressures. The bond market doesn't know how to take
>-> full employment. If & when we get inflation rolling rates do
>-> go higher. Seems to me this is a function of the capital markets
>-> and little else.
>->
>-> Granted we may be able to maintain much faster growth without
>-> igniting inflation. But in the not so distant past, we haven't.
>->
>
>I've heard this argument that Greenspan follows, rather than leading,
>before.
That's not always the case by any means. But it was true
this last time.
>But if that is so, why do we have Greenspan at all?
The Central bank does more than adjust fed funds etc up & down.
>Does he have an effect, or not?
Clearly.
>If he only follows, why does
>the stock market display such anxiety around his announcements?
IMO there are usually quite a few other factors surrounding
the volatility in the mkt, which BTW, is about 8% higher than
when AG mentioned "irrational exuberance". Of course that may
or may not hold.
keith
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5m2ja5$po2$3...@gail.ripco.com>,
Insectus Pentius <pen...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
>
>: So I take it you are opposed to democracy? I must either live with
>: oppressive government or leave? I cannot attempt to change it?
>
>
They can use it. But it is not effective and leaves them open to
charges that they support an authoritarian state where opposition
is not permitted.
>: I love all you big government fans - you say "shut up, pay whatever
>: you are told to pay and if you don't like it - leave". As I cannot
>
>And you tell us to put up with low-arse wages and shoddy living conditions
>while our bosses fly around in private jets, etc. etc.... or leave.
>
I tell you to put up with no such thing. I suggest that you NOT put
up with either of the first two items and not worry about the third.
The guy in the private jet did not put up with low wages and
shoddy living. Why not? What did he or she do? How did they escape
from these conditions? You totally reject the possibility of upward
mobility in these posts. But it IS possible. The guy in the jet is
no doubt an example but there are many others.
>: find another country where freedom and opportunity are as great as
>: they are here, that is hardly a reasonable option. And, hey, isn't it
>: people like you that go ballistic when a mega-rich guy renounces his
>: citizenship and moves to a Carribean island to avoid confiscatory
>: taxation??? Isn't that what you recommend? You say "shut up and pay".
>: Clearly you support serfdom.
>
>Look who's supporting serfdom. Your side.
>
How do you figure? Serfdom implies no choice but to serve. In the
free market you have a choice. Don't like one employer? Find another.
>--
>Microsoft is living proof that a sales talent is vastly more useful in a
>capitalist society than intelligence. A person with an IQ of 1,000 could
>die destitute, but a cretin with a sales talent can become a billionaire
>
>http://www.ripco.com/~pentius/
Mark D. Vincent
In article <17B7614C74...@mizzou1.missouri.edu>,
b <C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>In article <5m1veu$b...@northshore.shore.net>
>m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) writes:
>
>>In article <17B76A37AS...@mizzou1.missouri.edu>,
>>b <C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <5m1kai$r...@northshore.shore.net>
>>>m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) writes:
>>>
>>>>If I feel at any time that the relationship is not benefitting me
>>>>sufficiently I can break the connection and seek a better partner.
>>>>With government, I have no such freedom.
>>>
>>>are very few reasons for that to be the case, care to inform us
>>>which one of them it is?
>>
>>oppressive government or leave? I cannot attempt to change it?
>
>from what I wrote? I merely pointed out that you were wrong -
>you *do* have a choice as to which government you wish to live under.
>Do you deny this is the case? Perhaps you meant that you cannot
>get exactly the government you want. Well, I'm sorry, but that's
>the way the business world works too. I want a car as sporty as a
>Lamborgini that gets eighty miles to the gallon and only needs a
>tuneup once every 200,000 miles. The fact that no such car is
>available on the market does not make me cry out at the unfairness
>of it all; like most people, I attempt to make an intelligent com-
>promise.
>
>>you are told to pay and if you don't like it - leave". As I cannot
>>they are here, that is hardly a reasonable option. And, hey, isn't it
>
>oh, never mind :-) And I'm not a 'big government' fan, at least not
>insofar as I understand the common useage of the term.
>
>>citizenship and moves to a Carribean island to avoid confiscatory
>>taxation??? Isn't that what you recommend? You say "shut up and pay".
>>Clearly you support serfdom.
>
>intentions to me I have not voiced either explicitly or implicitly.
>All I have done is to point out that your initial statement was
>wrong, and I think even you will agree that for someone to pronounce
>something you have written to be false is not tantamount to supporting
>serfdom. At least, I hope you do.
>
OK, I'll put it this way:
I say: Government is too big and taxes and spends too much
You say: If you don't like it - leave.
I say: So attempting to change the government while remaining here is NOT
an option????
You say: I didn't say that.
OK, just what are you saying?????
Mark D. Vincent
In article <3384f5c0....@news.snowcrest.net>,
>>If I feel at any time that the relationship is not benefitting me
>>sufficiently I can break the connection and seek a better partner.
>>With government, I have no such freedom.
>
>you must live in America, and must be an American. And if you have
>any talents at all, there are lots of third-world countries with low
>tax rates where you could probably make a fairly comfortable living.
>
>But for all your Adam Smith 101 rhapsodizing, you seem to have not
>responded to my inferrence that perhaps big business does not have
>your best interests at heart. Is it impossible for you to agree to
>such a statement, little lackey?
>>
>
Of course big business (or small business for that matter) does not
have MY best interests "at heart" (yet another touchy feely liberal
whine). It has its own best interests "at heart". Profit making is
THE purpose of business. Providing ME a living is NOT AT ALL the
purpose of ANY business. However, to make that profit they must have
qualified workers and pay them market value so they will stick around.
If they fail to do this they cannot fulfill their purpose which is
to create profits. I exploit this need to provide my own living.
Did you get it this time, or should I type slower and use easier words???
fri...@ix.netcom.com
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
....
>
> I've heard this argument that Greenspan follows, rather than leading,
> have an effect, or not? If he only follows, why does the stock market
> display such anxiety around his announcements?
I note:
Of course Greenspan has an effect. Every trader thinks that others
think Greenspan has an effect, so when he says something, they act
according to how they think other traders will respond. After a day or
so traders go back to their usual practices and everything settles out.
Greenspan is a tool of the stockmarket, and remains so as long as
traders think his words affect other traders, IMO. Sort of like the
queen of spaces - everyone knows it will crop up sometime which adds a
little spice to the game, and as soon as it does crop up they can get
back to playing their hands.
MAF
MAF
keith
In article <339167a6....@news.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
says...
>
>And the real point is that the poor are kept unemployed in order to
>protect the luxuries of the rich.
That's your perspective. Since inflation reduces the value of
currency, it is not so surprising that in an environment where
inflation is rising, or in the case of the mkts, the expectation
that higher inflation could be in the pipepline causes the mkt to
demand a higher return in the form of interest rates to account
for that perceived risk to the value of currency.
I would expect you to do the same.
The poor will not benefit in an inflationary environment.
It is obvious that under current conditions unemployment can
go lower than previously thought without igniting inflation.
But this too has come at a price.
Everything is a trade off.
keith
Loren Petrich
In article <5m44ka$b...@northshore.shore.net>,
>>Why can't your opponents use the "Love it ot leave it" line?
>They can use it. But it is not effective and leaves them open to
>charges that they support an authoritarian state where opposition
>is not permitted.
Pure whining, but then...
... Don't like one employer? Find another.
"Love it or leave it"
There you go again, Mr. Vincent.
Loren Petrich
In article <5m4555$d...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote:
>I say: Government is too big and taxes and spends too much
>You say: If you don't like it - leave.
>I say: So attempting to change the government while remaining here is NOT
> an option????
>You say: I didn't say that.
>OK, just what are you saying?????
I'd imagine that he's saying that it works both ways -- that he
does not see why loving something or leaving it are the only legitimate
choices in some cases, but not in others.
And Mr. Vincent is being a big whiner here, because large numbers
of people have moved from one country to another. My father has done
that, so why can't he?
fri...@ix.netcom.com
More coffee! Queen of spades, of course.
Loren Petrich
In article <5m1iph$h...@northshore.shore.net>,
>> Hmmmm, I wonder what Mr. Vincent's response would be to, "Hi,
>> I'm from the government and you are drafted." Resist or comply?
>Unlike war hero Clinton, I would comply. But just what does that
>have to do with the current topic Ricky?
Even if it's under Clinton's command? :-)
Harold Brashears
On Thu, 22 May 1997 13:26:15 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>On 21 May 1997 14:07:39 -0400, m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>
>>In article <3383238d...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>>Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 02:49:49 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
[edited]
>>>You repeat your error, and further convince me that you are indeed as
>>>ignorant as I had one time thought. Had you read anything written by
>>>these two, you would understand that their policies, if implemented,
>>>would not lead to fascism, since both envision a smaller role for the
>>>state. Unlike your own recommendations, which call for a larger state
>>>role.
>
>I understood your gist the first time. What you DON'T understand is
>if government of the people is weakened, other forces move in, and
>restrengthen it--at our expense.
My first thought is simply that of wondering why you think that the
power exercised by a remote central government is not *already* "at
our expense"?
If you do not understand that, consider the fact that, if a government
agency decides to do so, your assets, from bank accounts to clothes,
may be confiscated, and you are compelled to prove you are *not*
guilty before you can get them back.
>Libertarians all think that since
>power rests with government, if you have less goverment, you have less
>power. No. Somebody else merely picks up the reins.
On second thought, you appear to be enumerating a hypothesis that
there is a given amount of power that outside forces have over your
life, and if not exercised by a remote government, would be exercised
by "other forces".
I think you should consider the idea that you have very low self
esteem. Hayek and Friedman appear to be advancing the concept that if
some remote government has less power over citizen's actions, then the
citizen will have that power, not some sinister group of "other
forces".
Not being by any means a psychologist, I will point out the I consider
their opinion considerably more balanced and less paranoid than is
your own.
>In this case,
>it would be the corporations, who would love a fascist state.
There is a case to be made, I think, that big corporations share one
affiliation with you Zeppy, in that they too would generally prefer to
see a stronger remote government. Large corporations have the
resources to deal with the heavy load of regulations you appear to be
so fond of, and would anticipate a reduction in competition afforded
by increased government regulation. Smaller businesses do not have
these resources, and are more resistant to a strong remote government.
Was this what you are trying to say?
>>The disconnect here Harold is that when someone knocks on Zeppo's door
>>and sez "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", Zeppo
>>believes it.
>
>And big business is your friend, and has only your best interests at
>heart. Isn't that so, Mark?
No, I consider Big Business, as such, to be beholden generally to Big
Government. This is not generally to my benefit. Maybe it is to
Mark.
Regards, Harold
----------
"The American wage earner...[is] a lot better economist than
most economists care to admit. They know that a government
big enough to give you everything you want is a government
big enough to take from you everything you have."
---Gerald R. Ford, remarks to a joint session of
Congress, 1974
Mark D. Vincent
>>You say: If you don't like it - leave.
>
>>I say: So attempting to change the government while remaining here is NOT
>> an option????
>>You say: I didn't say that.
>
>>OK, just what are you saying?????
>
> I'd imagine that he's saying that it works both ways -- that he
>does not see why loving something or leaving it are the only legitimate
>choices in some cases, but not in others.
>
OK then genius, then why do you always propose departure as the
solution for all of us who think government is too big???
> And Mr. Vincent is being a big whiner here, because large numbers
>of people have moved from one country to another. My father has done
>that, so why can't he?
>
The question should be - why would I? Where did your father go?
Where did he come from? Why did he move? What was the result? I know
this is far too much for you to fit in one of your absurdly short
canned responses but I will ask anyway. Prediction: Loren will snip
this series of questions in her followup post.
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
>
R. D. Forrest "Gump"
Have you had enough of tyranny? Do you CARE about American Freedoms?
Are you willing to try to make a difference?
You can make a difference now. As a DELEGATE in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
YOU will have taken a major step in participating in the self-rule of
this nation. You will have the opportunity to assemble with others who
CARE and in so doing share your visions of America. YOU will have the
ability to influence and decide, what ISSUES the PARTY should concern
itself with, on behalf of the PUBLIC INTEREST.
As a DELEGATE you are the VOICE OF AMERICA.
Attend the 1998 Precinct Convention of the Democratic Party, take your
first step as a new leader for the preservation of America as a
Delegate. Prepare yourself now for the duties of an American Hero.
--
God Bless America!
--
R. D. Forrest "Gump".................forr...@lconn.com
AFL_CIO "COMET" Volunteer Organizer
Texas Democratic Party - Delegate - Senate District 17
Forrest "Gump" for Governor of Texas 1998
--
Insectus Pentius
Michael Lodman (jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Why should I? I work so I don't have to. You're free to split whatever
: you have if you are feeling sorry for him though.
Which is to say....
"I have mine. Fuck everyone else."
Insectus Pentius
Mark D. Vincent (m...@shore.net) wrote:
: In article <5m2ja5$po2$3...@gail.ripco.com>,
: Insectus Pentius <pen...@ripco.com> wrote:
: >Why can't your opponents use the "Love it ot leave it" line?
: They can use it. But it is not effective and leaves them open to
: charges that they support an authoritarian state where opposition
: is not permitted.
In your case, it leaves you open to charges that you support authoritarian
corporations where opposition is not permitted. It works both ways. What's
the difference between a totalitarian government and a totalitarian
corporate structure? Zilch. Zip. It's the SAME thing. If EVERY employer
wants you to sign a release to prevent you from suing them for any reason,
what's your choice? Same with piss tests.
: >And you tell us to put up with low-arse wages and shoddy living conditions
: >while our bosses fly around in private jets, etc. etc.... or leave.
: I tell you to put up with no such thing. I suggest that you NOT put
: up with either of the first two items and not worry about the third.
Duh, what fucking choice do I have when I can't market my skills with a
computer, which you admitted I have. I'm self-taught. How do you market
yourself with an EMPTY RESUME???? You havn't answered the question, except
to quote a lame Nike advert cliche'.
: The guy in the private jet did not put up with low wages and
: shoddy living. Why not? What did he or she do? How did they escape
: from these conditions? You totally reject the possibility of upward
: mobility in these posts. But it IS possible. The guy in the jet is
: no doubt an example but there are many others.
In nearly all cases, they had an advantage not available to others. Don't
deny it. The "rags to riches" stories are VERY RARE.
: >Look who's supporting serfdom. Your side.
: How do you figure? Serfdom implies no choice but to serve. In the
: free market you have a choice. Don't like one employer? Find another.
Are you that naive? If you don't like this country, find another.